INTRODUCTION

As its title implies, this paper's goal is not to decide what astronomical phenomena the Star of Bethlehem described in the second chapter of Matthew's gospel might have been: that debate has raged in scholarly circles at least since Kepler, (and certainly in the popular imagination since long before him,) and will surely continue unabated with or without my contribution. Rather, what my research has shown, and what I will argue in this paper, is that how one frames this question, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" and how one answers it, reveals a great deal more about the person making the inquiry than about the Star itself. The question and its answer tell us more about what one sees in the second chapter of Matthew than about what was or was not seen in the night sky of Palestine two thousand years ago. The interpreters treated in this paper, an assortment of nineteenth- and twentieth- century astronomers and biblical scholars, will therefore be grouped according to what answer they give to the question of the Star of Bethlehem. How these groupings reveal their methodology and presuppositions will be shown using two very heuristic models, one proposed by an astronomer who has spent much time on the question, the other by the preeminent modern biblical scholar of the infancy narratives.

David Hughes concludes his book on the Star of Bethlehem by summarizing the possible explanations of it. ¹ Either the Star was 1) a natural phenomena, explicable by known scientific laws, which was interpreted by the Magi and the author of Matthew as a sign of the birth of Christ; 2) a miracle, not explainable by any known astronomical phenomena; or 3) a story or myth fabricated by the author of Matthew or the tradition prior to him. Which of these three explanations an interpreter, including Hughes, opts for tells us more about the interpreter than about the Star, because it tells us what a given interpreter views as an acceptable explanation of scripture, or as an acceptable explanation of nature and God's relation to it.

Raymond Brown usefully summarizes the difficulties of interpreting the infancy narratives by observing that scholarship has fallen into three epochs. ² These are, 1) the historical difficulties of the infancy narratives are appreciated; although all parts of the gospels are fraught with historical difficulties, in the infancy narratives these problems are especially acute, because the possibility of there having been eye-witnesses to the events - a possibility which is somewhat more plausible for the rest of the gospels - is here almost impossible to maintain; an attempt is therefore often made at this stage to give the infancy narratives the semblance of historicity by ascribing to them eye-witnesses - usually Mary or Joseph - thereby still allowing for a literal, factual reading of the accounts; 2) the historical difficulties are exacerbated because the accounts in Matthew and Luke are even more irreconciliable in the infancy narratives than they are elsewhere in the gospels; it is at this stage that attempts at harmonization and explanation, either between the gospels or with extrinsic sources, such as astronomical data, are made; and 3) rather than attempt such an historical reconstruction or harmonization, the interpreter can attempt to discern the evangelist's intent or the meaning he ascribed to the events he was describing. These epochs are not merely historical: each interpreter wrestles anew with these stages. Which of these three epochs a given interpretation falls into reveals not only the interpreter's attitude towards scripture, but also what the interpreter sees as the relationship between fact and truth, between events and their significance(s).

I will present the views starting at the extremes and ending with the moderating, and I hope ultimately more heuristic views of myself and some other modern biblical scholars.

NINETEENTH CENTURY BIBLICAL CRITICS : THE STAR AS PURE FICTION

Not surprisingly, many nineteenth-century biblical critics summarily dismiss the Star of Bethlehem as pure fiction invented by Matthew or the tradition prior to him. ³ The

reasons for their dismissal reveal their methodology and biases.

Ernest Renan's La Vie de Jesus is arguably the quintessential Life of Jesus, and in many ways it epitomizes the genre and those engaged in what would come to be known as the "Quest of the Historical Jesus." ⁴ Renan never once mentions the Star. Given his extreme, at times fanciful, attempts to explain or harmonize so many of the other details of the gospels' accounts of Jesus' life, for him to pass over such a detail is an extremely loud and eloquent silence. From the German school of biblical critics, David F. Strauss in his enormous work is also silent regarding the Star. ⁵ By their silence, these two giants in nineteenth-century biblical criticism have said in effect that this detail has no place in the "factual" or "true" account of Jesus that they are reconstructing. They take great pains to explain a myriad of other minute details of Jesus' life, but this one is so irrelevant and so obviously false that it does not even require dismissal, merely omission.

When the Star of Bethlehem is mentioned, it is often tersely dismissed as untrue, merely a myth:

"The general legendary character of this narrative ... stamp[s]

upon the story the impress of poetic or mythic fiction;" ⁶

"It is necessary to distinguish what is objectively real in the

narrative from what arises from the subjective stand-point of

the author of our Matthew's Gospel;" ⁷ "That the guiding star

of which Matthew tells us shines in no other firmament than

that of legend should be obvious;" ⁸ "Neither the visit of

the Magi, nor the appearance of the miraculous star, nor the

massacre of the Innocents, has any other basis than the

imagination of the hagiographer who put the whole story

together." ⁹

This evaluation of the Star of Bethlehem has by no means gone with outdated biblical scholars, but can be found in quite recent literature, though with an apologetic tinge: "I would argue the high probability that Matthew's story is one of the relatively few parts of the Gospels which can safely be classed as myth." ¹⁰ I will argue later in this paper that "untrue" and "myth" are not synonymous, but for many people, including these critics, the two terms are all too often interchangeable. For these interpreters, as for Renan and Strauss, to call something a myth is practically the worst invective they can conceive against a piece of literature, and effectively ends any necessity to discuss or analyze the text or its meaning. A myth is not worthy of analysis, for it can never reveal the type of facts or truth about Jesus which they are seeking. These interpreters differ from Renan and Strauss only in that they regard the myth of the Star of Bethlehem as worthy of mention and dismissal.

All of these analyses obviously fall into Hughes's third category, that of regarding the Star as a story invented by Matthew or others. All of these analyses also give an obviously negative evaluation to such a story: such stories are not worthy of analysis or even transmission. It is this negative definition of "story" that Hughes and others buy into, and since such a negative evaluation of scripture is (rightfully) unacceptable to them, they reject it as a possible explanation of the Star: "Far from being just a figment of Matthew's imagination,...Matthew's nativity reads like a simple tale well told. It has the ring of truth." ¹¹ The dichotomy is made explicit in this quote: if the Star is a myth, then it is "a figment of imagination" and therefore cannot be the "truth." Worse still perhaps, if the Star is a myth, then it will no longer even be of any "use" and will lack any "significance": "If, as is often maintained, the Nativity stories are poetic fictions, we cannot claim any real significance for them or use them for teaching .... If therefore the three signs of the Nativity are to be significant, they must at least be founded on fact." ¹² A strict dichotomy has been set up by all of these interpreters between "fact" and "myth," and their attitude towards scripture is revealed by whether they can accept the Bible as "unfactual" given this dichotomy.

All of these analyses of the Star fall into the second epoch described by Brown, a stage in which the historical discrepancies of the gospel account are harmonized with or analyzed in light of extrinsic data. Brown summarizes the presuppositions of this stage when he says of his own work, "Were this essay written during that second stage of scholarship, it might have been entitled: 'Were There Magi? Was There a Star?'" ¹³ This is obviously how these interpreters have framed the question, and their answer is a resounding and unanimous "NO!" These interpreters have reached the second stage described by Brown, but have aborted the project of historical reconstruction and harmonization with regard to the Star of Bethlehem, (though curiously not with regard to many of the other details of the gospels).

MODERN BIBLICAL LITERALISTS : THE STAR AS SUPERNATURAL EVENT

At the other extreme of interpretation from those who regard the Star of Bethlehem as pure fiction are those who steadfastly maintain that it was a miraculous event, without the need or even the possibility of a scientific or natural explanation. Although this explanation of the Star has probably always existed, and indeed may be the predominant explanation amongst the general public, I found it surprising that my survey uncovered more examples of it in the last decade than in the nineteenth century.

In the nineteenth century, J. H. Kurtz retold the story from Matthew's gospel as a triumphant miracle: "The celestial worlds joined in the celebration - the star in the east, the sign of the new-born king, came and stood over the lowly stable in Bethlehem, where the matchless wonder of worlds had taken place." ¹⁴ This quote points to the crux of the matter for these interpreters: according to Mt 2:9, "the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was." If this is taken literally as an eye-witness report of what happened at the time of Jesus' birth, then no known astronomical data will fit the description, because no known heavenly body flits about and hovers over a particular place. (Except, of course, UFOs, a possible explanation that has been entertained by some, because it, unlike any other "scientific" explanation, can be made to fit exactly the biblical description. Boa and Proctor use this explanation to great dramatic effect, building suspense until they finally reveal that the Star was a very special UFO indeed, namely God himself in visible form: "It seems, then, that the mystery has been solved. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah, which had returned to guide and reveal the presence of the Child whose name is Immanuel.") ¹⁵ Prudently prescinding from any mention of UFOs, this explanation of the Star is also given by several other modern interpreters:

"My opinion is that the star was some phenomenon functioning

within the earth's atmosphere (not unlike the Shekinah glory);" ¹⁶

"This sort of movement is entirely alien to any natural star and

is explained only by taking a supernatural view of the star and

surrounding events;" ¹⁷ "The conclusion is that the Star of

Bethlehem cannot be explained by science! It was a temporary and

supernatural light." ¹⁸

Once Mt 2:9 is read as a literal account of what happened, any further attempt to explain or harmonize Matthew's description of the Star with other data has to be abandoned, because no other data can be made to coincide with Matthew's account. ¹⁹

These explanations obviously fall into Hughes's second category, that of the Star as a miracle. And it seems that these interpreters have opted for this explanation for precisely the reason that Hughes rejected it. According to Hughes, "The second [explanation] is theologically weak because it requires a miracle when none was needed. Of course we cannot say that a miracle did not happen, only that it was not needed, as perfectly natural phenomenon occurred that fits in with all the information given in the source books." ²⁰ But for these interpreters, a miracle was needed. A mere conjunction or comet would not be appropriate celebrants at Christ's birth; something considerably more dramatic would be needed for the cosmic birthday celebration: "After all, was not the first Christmas a time of miracles?" ²¹

In terms of Brown's epochs in scholarship, all of these interpreters are either pre-critical, or are perhaps in the first stage, that of appreciating the difficulties in the

infancy narratives, but still regarding them as historical accounts. Although none of these interpreters explicitly states that Matthew's story is based on an eye-witness account, all treat it as such. And if treated in this way, Matthew's account does not allow any explanation of the Star of Bethlehem other than that it was a supernatural event.

A NOVA(E) :

ASTRONOMICAL DATA, OR FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A MIRACLE?

Some interpreters explain the Star of Bethlehem as a nova(e), and this group is interesting because they seem to give their explanation for quite different reasons from one another.

What has made the Star so vexing to so many over the centuries is that some phenomena which might otherwise fit the description in Matthew's gospel (more or less) can be calculated with great accuracy, and do not fall at exactly the right time for Christ's birth, or occur with some frequency, and therefore do not seem appropriate to these interpreters to announce the singular event of Christ's birth. ²² A nova(e), therefore, provides a seemingly "scientific" explanation without potentially embarrassing inaccuracies of dating or repetition, because a nova(e), a unique and unrepeating phenomenon, can occur at any time, without the possibility of prediction or extrapolation backwards using known data. By using a nova, God has, in effect, (wisely) eliminated a "smoking gun" from the story. Further, a nova(e) might seem sufficiently grand enough a phenomenon to herald the birth of Christ, especially when it is prodigiously timed with other astronomical events. Some interpreters seem to opt for the nova(e) explanation of the Star for precisely these reasons. ²³ It is often used as an embellishment to the more usual explanation of planetary conjunction, to eliminate the objection that conjunctions are not infrequent phenomena. ²⁴ Also, its grandeur is stressed in the language of mystery and miracle, a prosaic conjunction alone seeming insufficient for such an event:

"The conclusion seems to be certain that the Star of our Lord

was one of the great lights of the immeasurable heavens; first

seen by the eyes of men when, in mercy of the need of the human

heart, God revealed himself in human form." ²⁵ "He who rules

all things, so adjusted the times of the natural and the

supernatural that the one ministered to the other, the sign in

the heavens creating wonder and expectation." ²⁶ "... this

Star I conceive ... to have been a new star in the heavens.

Such would most fitly have announced a new thing, that a virgin

should conceive, that God should be with us. And I cannot but

think that the language of the wise men implies as much, whose

attention certainly no other signal in the heaven would have

been at all so well fitted to arouse." ²⁷

However, some of these interpreters also seem overly sensitive that the Star should not be interpreted as a miracle:

"... to suppose the star to be any thing less than one of the

permanent lights of the firmament is to degrade it to the level

of a 'Will-o'-the-wisp.' " ²⁸ "Our simple narrative knows

nothing of a miraculous star, i.e. of a phenomenon effected by

God and beyond the course of nature." ²⁹

But in a way, they protest too much, as it does not seem unfair to label their explanation of the Star as the functional equivalent of a miracle: the Star is explained as a phenomenon which is unpredictable, extraordinary, and effectively incapable of proof or disproof. These interpreters want the Star to seem "scientific" (and therefore for them "true"), but it must also be appropriate for the birth of Christ. Put another way, it must be natural enough to be believable, yet supernatural enough to be grand and impressive, and therefore their explanation has elements of both the scientific and the miraculous.

On the other hand, a recent debate in which the Star of Bethlehem is interpreted as a nova(e) does not seem motivated by considerations of the Star's miraculousness, but only by consideration of astronomical data. ³⁰ The debate centers around some Chinese accounts that may indicate a nova(e) at approximately the correct time of Christ's birth. ³¹ Although they arrive at the same conclusion as the interpreters mentioned above, it seems fair to distinguish these interpreters from the former, because their conclusion is an analysis (perhaps tenuous) of astronomical data, and not just a bold assertion. They are (at least rhetorically) debating the matter scientifically, and not just giving a "scientific" explanation that looks very much like a miracle, admitting of neither proof nor disproof.

The interpreters who explain the Star of Bethlehem as a nova(e) fall into Hughes's first category, that of the Star as a natural phenomenon, although some of them interestingly straddle the fence between natural and supernatural phenomena, using a semblance of the former in the service of the latter. They want things both ways: God should be the grand artificer as well as a consummate showman. They want God to accomplish his/her purpose without upsetting nature and its laws, but like those who explain the Star as a miracle, they feel that the Star should be something special and out of the ordinary. And as Hughes criticizes those who call the Star a miracle, labelling their explanation "theologically weak," these interpreters have also been criticized for overdoing things a bit, and making God appear inefficient or extravagant: "To create a vast world merely to guide a little company of men to the place where the child was, seems to show an immense disproportion between the instrument and the work." ³²

All of these interpreters fall into Brown's second epoch of scholarship, that of harmonization. Unlike those who got to this stage and gave up, dismissing the Star as merely a myth, these interpreters have decided that it can be harmonized with other data, perhaps even providing a clue to the date of Christ's birth. ³³ However, some of them have shown a tendency to avoid harmonizing the Star to the point where it might appear dull or mundane, and have therefore given a scientific explanation that retains some mystery or unimpeachability.

CONJUNCTION OR COMET : ASTRONOMY HARMONIZED WITH THE BIBLE

The most common explanation of the Star of Bethlehem is that it was the conjunction(s) of Jupiter and Saturn (and perhaps Mars as well) in 7 - 6 B.C. This explanation has been endorsed by the largest number of interpreters. ³⁴ As seen above in the case of nova(e), this explanation can also be combined with other astronomical phenomena, such as comets. ³⁵ The explanation that the Star was a comet alone is much less popular. ³⁶ There are also those who opt for a different, later conjunction(s) as the Star of Bethlehem, thereby necessitating re-dating Christ's birth; although their answer is different, their methodology is the same as the others mentioned here. ³⁷ Also the same methodologically are a variety of idiosyncratic "scientific" suggestions as to the identity of the Star. ³⁸

What makes all of these the same methodologically is that they all fall squarely into Hughes's first category, the Star as a natural phenomenon, and all are firmly anchored in Brown's second epoch of scholarship, the stage of harmonization. They all seek to harmonize, in one way or another, the bible with scientific data: they differ only as to the data with which they seek to harmonize it. Unlike some of those who explained the Star as a nova(e), they do not need the Star to appear miraculous. Indeed, a God who performs such miracles outside the realm of science and natural law appears extravagant and somewhat embarrassing to them: "God is master of his creation and can guide it according to his will, and all in accordance with what we call 'natural law.'" ³⁹ Their explanations of the Star of Bethlehem thereby tell us much more about their concept of God than about any astronomical phenomena: God is a logical and sober scientist and engineer, a portrait of him/her every bit as anthropomorphic, it should be noted, as any biblical portrait of a God with passions and emotions.

THE STAR AS MIDRASH : TRUTH IN STORY

The time has now come for the author to give his own explanation of the Star of Bethlehem. The story of the Star of Bethlehem is a midrash. ⁴⁰ It is not history, it is not science, it is story. ⁴¹ By saying this, I mean neither to affirm nor to deny the possibility, or even the probability, that a historical fact lies behind the narrative: I merely suggest that such a fact, if it existed, does not cast much light on Matthew's purpose in relating this story. Nowhere in this paper or anywhere else do I suggest that Matthew "made up" the Star out of whole cloth, but rather that he knew of traditions about Jesus' birth (traditions that Mark and John either did not know or found uninteresting, and traditions quite different from those found in Luke) and that he included some of these in his Gospel, weaving them with other traditions and making them serve his own literary and theological purposes. ⁴² In other words, I am suggesting that the meaning of the Star of Bethlehem is better sought in the rest of Matthew's Gospel, rather than in astronomical data. ⁴³

This also means that with my conclusion I am not criticizing the results of any of the authors treated above, but rather the various hermeneutics they employ to arrive at their results: that some interpreters diligently search for such a fact, while others vehemently deny that such a fact will ever be found, either because they think that the Star is a lie or a miracle, tells us nothing about the Star, but does cast a great deal of light on the interpreters, as I think has been shown above. Hughes's work does seem to show that the triple conjunction of 7 - 6 B.C. is the most likely candidate for the fact that may lie behind Matthew's story of the Star of Bethlehem, but to claim anything more than this is unwarranted. In itself, the plethora of "scientific" explanations of the Star goes a long way towards suggesting that no one of them has a definitive claim, and that the methodology that produces them is essentially flawed: a hermeneutic that produces one or two new explanations for a given question each year must strike anyone as a less than helpful way to approach the question. Also, Matthew's temporal distance from the events narrated (ca. 80 - 100 years) further lessens the likelihood that he had access to the astronomical facts of 7 B.C. (if indeed such facts would have been of interest to him). If, however, it could be shown that a first century Jewish-Christian like Matthew would have attached special significance to a triple conjunction in Pisces, this might tend to outweigh such a temporal distance and suggest more strongly that Matthew did know of the conjunction; but our knowledge of Jewish astronomical speculation during this time period is simply too scanty to make such a leap. ⁴⁴ Rather, Matthew's story of the Star seems best explained as an affirmation that the miracles in Jesus' life began all the way back at his birth, and not merely at the beginning of his public ministry, as in Matthew's predecessor Mark. (Luke surrounds Jesus' birth with different portents, most notably angels. For John, Jesus' supernatural qualities are pushed even further back, all the way to the creation of the kosmos.) Further, a crucial role of this story is to contrast the hatred and violence of the Israelite usurper, Herod, with the naive faith of the pagan Magi. ⁴⁵

My explanation of the Star obviously falls into Hughes's third category, though I must object to the negative connotations that he and many others have given to this interpretation: just because it is a story, the Star is not therefore a lie or merely a piece of pious propaganda. It is a midrash in the sense that it is a story that reveals what the author of Matthew's gospel feels is the truth about the man whose story he is telling, this Jesus whom Matthew and subsequent generations of believers have proclaimed as the Christ. Hughes's book on the Star of Bethlehem is truly astonishing in its thoroughness, and will most likely go down in history as the definitive astronomical work on the Star of Bethlehem. However, in its methodology and presuppositions about what constitutes truth, it is ultimately flawed. For Hughes and so many others, to call something a story is equivalent to calling it "a figment of imagination" and therefore not the "truth." ⁴⁶ This is not the necessary definition of story, and Hughes shows his bias and unfamiliarity with the proper use of the term when he writes, "According to a very different and more modern argument, the reference to the star in Matthew is 'midrash.'" ⁴⁷ In fact, of course, midrash is the name for a method of conveying truth through story at least as old as the Talmud (4th - 6th century C.E.), and almost certainly much older. To say that Matthew is writing a midrash is therefore not an assertion of modern skepticism, but is in fact the most ancient way of describing his enterprise, a description that is neither anachronistic nor pejorative. It is by calling Matthew's work history and treating it as such that we do violence to the author and his intention: "The writer who blended strands into the variegated infant Jesus story was not concerned with historical literalism," ⁴⁸ and neither should we be when we read Matthew's gospel. Hughes and everyone else - astronomer, historian, or theologian - must come to realize that history is not the sole or even the best conveyer of truth. The great storytellers, Matthew among them, (I fear he would not rate so high on a list of historians, ancient or modern,) tell us much that we need to know: "Of course, historicity is not necessarily intrinsic to meaning. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar may reveal human character better than a factual chronicle of Caesar's administration." ⁴⁹ Only with this definition of story can we begin to approach Matthew's story of the Star usefully.

My interpretation of the Star as midrash falls (I hope) into Brown's third epoch of scholarship, in which significance rather than facts are sought. Matthew is trying to tell us something by writing a story, and therefore our question should not be, (as it might be if we were reading a history,) "What really happened?" Such a question is not in the author's mind and deflects our attention from what is really important. Rather, (as is appropriate when reading either a story or a history,) our question should be, "What is the significance or meaning of what is recorded?" Matthew's goal is the same as the gospel tradition previous to him, to proclaim "the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ" (Mk 1:1), and therefore the appropriate question is, "How do the infancy narratives convey the good news of salvation, so that they are truly and literally 'gospel'?" ⁵⁰ The question Matthew seeks to answer with his story of the Star is, "What does it mean for Jesus to be the Christ?" For Matthew, (unlike his predecessor Mark,) it means being born in a miraculous way, a way which can point to his status and mission, if one is as receptive as the Magi were and as Matthew exhorts his audience to be. Only when we put the question of the Star of Bethlehem this way can we give it an interpretation which is accurate and meaningful.

The scholarly fray outlined in this paper about the identity of the Star of Bethlehem is one into which every biblical scholar or layperson who reads the text must sincerely

and thoughtfully enter. I can only hope that my own position is one which at least some will find helpful as they approach the question.

¹ D. W. Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem. An Astronomer's Confirmation (New York: Walker and Company, 1979) p. 198. I would like to thank Dr. Hughes for his gracious help in revising this paper for publication.

² Briefly given in R. Brown, "The Meaning of the Magi; The Significance of the Star," Worship 49 (1975) pp. 574 - 582, and more fully elaborated in the introduction to his The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) pp. 25 - 41.

³ I refer to the author of the first gospel as "Matthew" out of convenience and custom, without any further implications. I use the masculine pronoun to refer to the author to acknowledge that, given the culture and times, biblical authors were almost certainly male. I have, however, avoided the masculine pronoun to refer to the Deity, although I have reproduced it when quoting secondary literature.

⁴ E. Renan, La Vie de Jesus (Berlin: Jul. Springer, 1863). Scweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. by W. Montgomery, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1954) pp. 180 - 192, of course rightly criticizes Renan and his method, but even he must grudgingly admit the book's impact and lasting impression: "This was the first Life of Jesus for the Catholic world.... Renan's work marked an epoch, not for the Catholic world only, but for general literature" (p. 181); "The book passed through eight editions in three months" (p. 188); "...this work will always retain a certain interest" (p. 191).

⁵ D. F. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus (authorized translation, 2 vols., London: Williams and Norgate, 1865). His comment on p. 258 effectively settles the issue for him: "To this John [the Baptist], when baptizing on the lower Jordan, all the Evangelists represent Jesus as coming and submitting to his baptism. History cannot take up the thread of the life of Jesus before this point. Out of the tissue of legends referring to his infancy and youth only two or three points can be adopted as historical." On Strauss and his tremendous impact, see Schweitzer, p. 68 - 120, especially the encomium on p. 78.

⁶ T. W. Doane, Bible Myths (New York: Charles P. Somerby, 1882) p. 140.

⁷ A. Neander, The Life of Jesus Christ (trans. by J. M'Clintock and C. E. Blumenthal, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1848) p. 26.

⁸ J. Warschauer, The Historical Life of Christ (London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1927)

p. 18.

⁹ C. Guignebert, Jesus (trans. by S. H. Hooke, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1935) p. 93.

¹⁰ C. Cullen, "Can we Find the Star of Bethlehem in Far Eastern Records?" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 20 (1979) pp. 153 - 159; quote from p. 158.

¹¹ D. W. Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, p. 198.

¹² H. A. Blair, "The Signs of the Nativity," Church Quarterly Review 160 (1959) pp. 4 - 10; quote from p. 4.

¹³ Brown, "The Significance of the Star," p. 576.

¹⁴ J. H. Kurtz, The Bible and Astronomy (trans. by T. D. Simonton. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1857) p. 272. With the mention of the stable, Kurtz shows that he is trying to harmonize Matthew with Luke much more than with any astronomical data. T. Milner, Astronomy and Scripture (London: John Snow, 1843) pp. 348 - 352, also draws attention to Mt 2:9 in particular and draws the conclusion that the Star of Bethlehem must therefore have been "a meteoric phenomenon... supernaturally provided" (p. 352). The reviewer of F. W. Upham, The Star of Our Lord (New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1873) also endorses a supernatural explanation of the Star of Bethlehem: "... what the evangelist calls a star was simply a temporary light sent to guide the Wise Men, as the pillar of fire and cloud guided the chosen people in the wilderness. This is the simplest solution of the problem, and the one which best accords with the obvious import of the Scripture account," Methodist Quarterly Review 57 (July 1875) pp. 437 - 451.

¹⁵ K. Boa and W. Proctor, The Return of the Star of Bethlehem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books, 1980) p. 134.

¹⁶ K. R. Hughes, "The Magi's Worship," Christianity Today 29 (December 1985) pp. 26 - 28; quote from p. 27.

¹⁷ D. Haag, "The Star in God's Window," Fundamentalist Journal 3 (December 1984) pp. 40 - 41; quote from p. 41.

¹⁸ D. B. DeYoung, Questions and Answers on Astronomy and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989) p. 66.

¹⁹ Cf. the conclusion of R. A. Oriti, "The Star of Bethlehem," The Griffith Observer 39 (December 1975) pp. 9 - 14, "... those who believe in a literal translation of the Bible may choose to believe that the Star literally moved and stood over the young child. Such an interpretation must rule out any astronomical explanation and substitutes instead a supernatural, or miraculous, event" (p. 14).

²⁰ D. W. Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, p. 198.

²¹ DeYoung, p. 66.

²² Of course, our dating of Christ's birth is dependent on other data from the gospel accounts, especially the census described in Luke 2 and Jesus' crucixion. Which of these events is more "historical" and which is more "legendary"? If one grants the Star a high degree of "historical" accuracy, then one can of course simply move the date of Christ's birth to coincide with it; several interpreters do this, e.g., I. Bulmer-Thomas, "The Star of Bethlehem," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 33 (Dec. 1992) pp. 363-374, who moves Christ's birth up to 5 B.C.; M. R. Molinar, "The Coins of Antioch," Sky and Telescope 83 (Jan. 1992) pp. 37-39, who believes the Star of Bethlehem was two lunar occultations of Jupiter in 6 B.C.; C. J. Humphreys, "The Star of Bethlehem, A Comet in 5 B.C. and the Date of Christ's Birth," The Tyndale Bulletin 43.1 (1992) pp. 31 - 56, esp. pp. 44 - 49, who combines the conjunction and comet explanations of the Star; J. Seymour and M. W. Seymour, "The Historicity of the Gospels and Astronomical Events concerning the Birth of Christ," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 19 (1978) pp. 194 - 197, who subscribe to the nova theory and move Christ's birth up to 4 B.C.; E. L. Martin, "The Celestial Pageantry Dating Christ's Birth," Christianity Today 21 (December 1976) pp. 16 - 22, who opts for a different conjunction than most interpreters and therefore moves Christ's birth all the way up to 3/2 B.C., as also does D. Stamps, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" National Wildlife 26 (Dec. 1987/Jan. 1988) pp. 18-19.

²³ Although protesting his caution, E. W. Maunder, The Astronomy of the Bible (London: T. Sealey Clark & Co., 1908) pp. 393 - 400, seems especially fond of the nova explanation of the Star of Bethlehem, even giving the Magi a primitive telescope with which to see it (!).

²⁴ E.g., S. J. Andrews, The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth (New York: Charles Scribner, 1862) pp. 9 - 12; F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1874) pp. 42 - 46; B. Weiss, The Life of Christ (trans. by J. W. Hope, 3 vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909) p. 264 (tentatively). All are, of course, following Kepler's suggestion to one degree or another.

²⁵ F. W. Upham, The Star of Our Lord, quoted in the review in The Methodist Quarterly Review 57, p. 446. I have not been able to locate the book itself.

²⁶ By the reviewer of F. W. Upham, pp. 448 - 449.

²⁷ R. C. Trench, The Star of the Wise Men (Philadelphia: H. Hooker, 1850) pp. 28 - 29.

²⁸ F. W. Upham, as quoted in the review, p. 450.

²⁹ Weiss, The Life of Christ, p. 264.

³⁰ The debate went on in a series of articles replying to one another, sometimes quite pointedly: D. H. Clark, J. H. Parkinson, and F. R. Stephenson, "An Astronomical Re-Appraisal of the Star of Bethlehem - A Nova in 5 BC," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 18 (1977) pp. 443 - 449; Seymour and Seymour, cited in note #22 above; A. J. Morehouse, "The Christmas Star as a Supernova in Aquila," The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 72 (1978) pp. 65 - 68; and C. Cullen, cited in note #10 above.

³¹ Apparently, the Chinese records have been available for some time, as Farrar (1874, cited in note #24 above), p. 45, and C. Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1883) pp. 558 - 559, note "s 3," both mention them, but their analysis, then or now, has been fraught with difficulties, owing especially to the language barrier and the ambiguity of the terms used. It is unclear from the Chinese records whether a nova(e) or comet(s) is referred to: cf. H. W. Montefiore, "Josephus and the New Testament," Novum Testamentum 4 (1960) pp. 139 - 160, esp. pp. 140 - 146.

³² The reviewer of F. W. Upham, p. 448.

³³ See note #22 above.

³⁴ E.g., E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (trans. by R. and C. Winston, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960) pp. 32 - 35; R. Rodman, "A Linguistic Note on the Christmas Star," The Griffith Observer 40 (December 1976) pp. 8 - 9; D. W. Hughes, "The Star of Bethlehem," Nature 264 (December 1976) pp. 513 - 517, and his later book length treatment cited in note #1 above; R. A. Rosenberg, "The 'Star of the Messiah' Reconsidered," Biblica 53 (1972) pp. 105 - 109; F. L. Filas, "The Star of the Magi," The Irish Ecclesiastical Record 85 (1956) pp. 432 - 433; R. A. Oriti, cited in note #19 above; Adler Planetarium, "What Was the Star of Bethlehem?" reprinted in Christianity Today 9 (December 1964) pp. 5 - 8, the original pamphlet is only available at the planetarium itself; W. Keller, The Bible as History (trans. by W. Neil, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1956) pp. 328 - 336; and K. Ferrari-D'Occhieppo, "The Star of the Magi and Babylonian Astronomy," in Chronos, Kairos, Christos. Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989) pp. 41 - 53.

³⁵ For those who combine the conjunction explanation with nova(e), see note #24 above. Those who combine the conjunction explanation with comet(s) are, e.g., H. W. Montefiore and C. Geikie, both cited in note #31 above; and C. J. Humphreys, cited in note #22 above. These are actually two versions of the same theory, as both rely on Chinese records in which nova(e) and comet(s) are not clearly distinguishable. Cf. note #31 above.

³⁶ D. E. Etz, "Comets in the Bible," Christianity Today 18 (December 1973) pp. 6 - 8, seems both aware and unperturbed that he is highly idiosyncratic in making this suggestion in modern times: "Curiously, few even mention the possibility of a comet" (p. 6). For a characteristically thorough critique of a comet(s) as the Star of Bethlehem, see Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, pp. 139 - 145.

³⁷ E.g., E. L. Martin and D. Stamps, both cited in note #22 above; R. W. Sinnott, "Thoughts on the Star of Bethlehem," Sky and Telescope (December 1968) pp. 384 - 386; and G. Lovi, "Rambling Through December Skies," Sky and Telescope (December 1984) pp. 537 - 538.

³⁸ Many of these suggestions, including meteors and ball lightning, are treated by Hughes under the catchall category of "Celestial phenomena," chapter 8 in his The Star of Bethlehem, pp. 164 - 176. Also, there is a book length treatment of the Star as simply the planet Venus: G. Mackinlay, The Magi. How They Recognized Christ's Star (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), a suggestion apparently never seconded. It is critiqued by Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, pp. 133 - 138. Also see Bulmer-Thomas, cited in note #22 above for the Star as Jupiter.

³⁹ Etz, op. cit., p. 8.

⁴⁰ A helpful treatment of Matthew's use of midrash is H. Hendrickx, The Infancy Narratives (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984) esp. pp. 4 - 7, 37 - 46, and his estimation of the historicity of such material, which is much the same as mine: "Haggadic midrash means a free form of narration, in which picturesque details are not necessarily historical and the insertion of legendary elements is permissible. In fact such additions are rather expected, to accentuate the religious and theological meaning of the real facts. Hence we can eliminate two extremes. On the one hand, historicity even in the smallest details would be practically excluded, and on the other hand, mere fiction or mere literary construction would be very unlikely" (p. 20).

⁴¹ "Story" is used here and throughout without any predeciding of its historicity, as in the definition in Webster's New World Dictionary (3rd College Edition, Cleveland and New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988): "The telling of a happening or connected series of happenings, whether true or fictitious" p. 1322 (emphasis added). Also cf. my comment to much the same effect in U.S. News and World Report 108, #17 (April 30, 1990) p. 6, as well as the article two weeks previous which elicited my remarks.

⁴² That the infancy narratives are so carefully and integrally woven that their individual strands cannot now be separated from the evangelists' ultimate purposes is shown by the lack of individual entries for either the Magi or the Star of Bethlehem in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. by D. N. Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992); both are mentioned only as they relate to Matthew's infancy narrative and to his gospel as a whole.

⁴³ A full discussion of Matthew's purposes in his infancy narrative and his gospel as a whole lies far beyond this paper, which should only be seen as a critique of several hermeneutics, perhaps at most as a suggestion of a slightly better hermeneutic. Brown's The Birth of the Messiah provides the fullest treatment. Also helpful is Hendrickx, op. cit., esp. his comments on how history and legend are woven together by Matthew to suit his purposes: "In this perspective it goes without saying that Matthew did not believe or wish to make others believe that everything which he states corresponds necessarily to actual events. It is almost certain that he included in his narrative certain elements, not because he considered them rigorously historical, but simply because he believed them peculiarly suited to throw into relief some aspect of the fundamentally historical event: the appearance of the Emmanuel, who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem in Judah, Light of the nations and the King of Israel, persecuted by evil, but finally victorious over both death and evil" (p. 21). Also cf. the conclusions of R. Horsley, The Liberation of Christmas (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1989), who stresses the unity of Matthew's social (rather than narrowly theological) message: "The Star in Matthew 2, in sum, fits perfectly with the politicohistorical thrust of the story of the birth of a liberating king revealed to and by the distinguished sacral-royal Magi, eager for such signs and such deliverance" (p. 60).

⁴⁴ Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 172 - 173.

⁴⁵ Cf. the conclusions of Horsley, cited in note #43 above, as well as W. E. Phipps, "The Magi and Halley's Comet," Theology Today 43 (1986) pp. 88 - 92. The title might seem to imply that Phipps thinks the Star of Bethlehem was really Halley's comet, but in fact he believes that the appearance of Halley's comet in 66 C.E. influenced Matthew's account of Jesus' birth, a story designed to contrast the real king of the world, Jesus, with the tyrannical usurper, Herod, and by extension all earthly tyrants. His suggestion is bold and persuasive.

⁴⁶ Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, p. 198; see note #11 above.

⁴⁷ Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem, p. 195.

⁴⁸ Phipps, op. cit., p. 91.

⁴⁹ Phipps, op. cit., p. 91. Dr. Jon Levenson, whose influence on me should be heard during the more lucid moments of this paper, also often uses Shakespeare as an example of how story can contain more truth than history.

⁵⁰ Brown, "The Significance of the Star," p. 576.